Standardized Tests

It seems that, despite facing a tougher curriculum in our schools, Michigan students continue to struggle with standardized tests. While some scores are up, and those interestingly enough in science and math, others are down, particularly in writing skills. In whatever subject, almost half still failed in math, while a solid 53% failed in writing.

The results are definitely a mixed bag. When analyzed further, what is shown is something not really surprising at all: wealthier areas scored better than poorer. The simple fact is that, where there's a greater community and parental involvement in the schools, there's greater progress.

Harder course studies simply won't affect that. While there's little doubt that something has to be tried with ineffective schools, there is also little reason to believe that any method will ever be workable in some areas. It is worth asking whether the best answer for failing students and failing schools is to simply lower standards, to allow lower achieving students to get on with their lives doing whatever work they are capable of doing.

Not everyone can or wants to do math; why make them? If they don't care for social studies, there simply isn't a lot which can be done to force them. Indeed, sometimes the best lessons are the ones taught by everyday life. They may be the only lessons some can learn.

Think globally? Think Locally.

One of the most basic axioms a conservative should have in his arsenal is known as the Principle of Subsidiarity. Plainly stated, it says that things should be done on the most local level possible. Why? Because that it the surest way to get necessary things accomplished in the most efficient manner.

The closer we are to a problem the better we ought to be able to understand it. We will see it more clearly, and indeed, particularly with issues and events nearby, we will likely have a greater interest in it. Schools, for example, should by and large be run within the local community because it is the locals who have the greatest interest in the education of their kids. Their kids are the ones who are generally going to hang around and run things when the current generation cannot anymore.

As a rule, the closer to a problem the less money which must be spend alleviating it. This is in part due to localized control, again as issues should be seen more clearly but also as there would be no added layers of bureaucracy which would otherwise have to be paid for by the electorate. Perhaps this is why, try as she might, Washington cannot get a grip on poverty: too much money which is supposed to help the poor in fact keeps bureaucrats at their desks.

There are of course many factors to consider when deciding what job should be done where in a national scheme. A nation as a whole must take up the defense of its people: could Detroit reasonably be expected to ward off an attack by a large foreign power on its own? If we were to leave Detroit to its own devices (a prospect many folks out there may not mind, but let's set aside jokes right now) we would hardly be a nation in the best sense of the word.

As a rule, conservatives would argue that few powers would be nationwide in scope. Military protection, the necessary and proper federal judicial arrangements, coinage, and issues of commerce (to varying degrees) come first to mind. State power would be wider than that of municipalities, perhaps, while communities would see to the bulk of day in and day out tasks: police and fire protection, trash pickup, and to the schools, among other chores.

We could go on all day discussing particulars, but you get the point. Local control is the best remedy for most ills. It is a point which should be discussed, if you'll excuse the irony, on a wider scale.